so, who's going to blame HAARP?

[cerberusxp]

Yes, you can. If you have some basic knowledge about electromagnetism in general and HAARP specifically.

1) It doesn't have the energy to initiate an earthquake

2) It doesn't have the directivity to direct energy at a specific point due to the fluidity of the ionosphere

3) The electromagnetic radiation cannot penetrate very deep into water, thus it would have no chance of reaching the seabed where the quake occurred.

So, yes, HAARP can easily be ruled out.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Beg to differ here with two active HAARPS emitting frequencies slightly off and timed just right so that those frequencies came together at a certain point in the earth at the right time it would create a third frequency capable of vibrating the mantle enough. I'm saying the one in Australia and the one in Alaska you forget these can send ultra high as well as ultra low frequency into the ground as well as into the air. Remember this is far beyond what Tesla had that could direct a "death ray to anywhere in the world". There are more than just the two haarp facilities LINK around the world now. Used in tandem these could do much much more than just earthquakes. Yes I was going to start a whole thread on HAARP as the cause.Yes it can and yes it does have the energy. Ground penetrating radar only achieves KHZ range HAARP on the other hand is capable of emitting 3.6 million gigahertz.

Edited March 14, 2011 by cerberusxp

[ColoradoParanormal]

I couldn't restore a backup image to my computer last night. If that is not proof of HARRP's malevolence, I don't know what is.

LOL!

[Little Fish]

HAARP on the other hand is capable of emitting 3.6 million gigahertz.

Don't you mean input of 3.6 megawatts of power?

with 1000-fold antenna gain, gives an effective power output of 3.6 gigawatts

[ploppy]

I had to google HAARP to find out exactly what it was, I thought it was some MMO related term for a second

Anyway - I'm not saying I believe any of this but a friend of mine who is deeply commited to some conspiracy theories gave me his opinion on the current 'natural' disasters.

He claims that the past few years many of the earthquakes were done purposely, by TPTB (we'll say). He claims that they started off hitting poorer countries first to test the technology. Like a nuclear weapon test (minus Indiana Jones in a refridgerator). He believes it's possible, now he said he hasn't completely convinced himself yet (so give him a break) that the attack on Japan might of also been forcefully triggered by man made technology. Why? I dunno.

Maybe because Japan is so damn powerful, maybe because they needed to test their technology on a proper world player, maybe because Japan's insurance investors and stocks are now plummeting and the world runs on the spin of currency?

Maybe because TPTB were terrified of Japan's Giant Mecha Robots unleashing themselves onto the other major players on the planet....no that's just my own madcap idea

Now like I said, before you chime in with "your friend is clearly crazy/stupid ect" - remember the poor guy is trying his hardest not to make himself believe that this was anything other than mother nature being a grade A byatch.

[badeskov]

Don't you mean input of 3.6 megawatts of power?

Yes he does.

with 1000-fold antenna gain, gives an effective power output of 3.6 gigawatts

This is just plain out wrong. You can only get out what you send in, thus the maximum you can get out of the HAARP antenna array is 3.6MW, and it will be even less than that due to loss factors in the system. Gain is not some "magical" entity that boost your output power of an antenna. For antennas gain in a given direction simply refers to much much energy is sent out in a given direction compared to what would be sent out by an ideal omnidirectional antenna with the same input power.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

Beg to differ here with two active HAARPS emitting frequencies slightly off and timed just right so that those frequencies came together at a certain point in the earth at the right time it would create a third frequency capable of vibrating the mantle enough.

I am sorry, but they are simply not capable of this. I see a few misconceptions in this, to be honest. First of all, HAARP has very limited beam steering capabilities due to the antenna arrays used (dipole antennas). Essentially, they point straight up. Secondly, you can't bounce something off the ionosphere and then expect it to hit somewhere specific. That is simply impossible. The ionosphere is a fluid mass that cannot be seen or it's behavior predicted in any manner that would allow for such. It would be the same as trying to bounce a search light you couldn't move off an ocean you couldn't see and then expect it to hit where you want it to. Thirdly, frequencies slightly offset would be the worst choice of technology as they would only add up constructively and thus deliver the energy at a fraction of the time of transmission. It simply makes no sense, sorry. Simply doesn't work like that.

I'm saying the one in Australia and the one in Alaska you forget these can send ultra high as well as ultra low frequency into the ground as well as into the air.

No, they cannot. This is plain out wrong, sorry. The HAARP antenna arrays are emitting energy at 3 and 10MHz, which is neither ULF (300Hz to 3kHz) or UHF (300MHz to 3GHz). Both transmission frequencies are within the same band, the High Frequency (HF) band ranging from 3 to 30MHz. And they cannot send energy very deep into the ground, relatively speaking, given that they should be capable of initiating Earth quakes. Only ELF (3 to 30Hz) has that capability. And then the energy is only absorbed gradually and cannot be focused and deposited in a given spot. At 3 and 10MHz, depending on the exact composition of the soil, it will penetrate a range from 10 to 100m. Nice image on global-gpr.com's website:

That should give you some idea. And in this respect it should be noted that the Japanese Earth quake happened under the seabed in a depth of 32km. That is far, far below any human capabilities. We can simply not deposit energy at such depths. And no, the super-secret-hidden technology card doesn't help. It is basic physics and not even CIA or whichever 3 letter acronym one might come up with is capable of such.

Remember this is far beyond what Tesla had that could direct a "death ray to anywhere in the world".

Which he couldn't. That was an idea he had, an idea that essentially had no basis in reality.

There are more than just the two haarp facilities LINK around the world now. Used in tandem these could do much much more than just earthquakes.

No, they cannot. For the exact reasons stated above. Those who peddle such ridiculous theories could do with a bit of basic math and physics. Could be an eye opener. They could just as well argue that 2+2 equals 5. It is just as ridiculous.

Yes it can and yes it does have the energy.

No and no. Those who claim such merely accomplish to display sheer ignorance (their own).

Ground penetrating radar only achieves KHZ range

Yes, for a very specific reason. Only radio waves in that frequency spectrum can be used for deep ground penetrating radar.

HAARP on the other hand is capable of emitting 3.6 million gigahertz.

By all means of respect, but I have no idea how you managed to jumble that up so bad to be honest. But I guess you are not familiar with electromagnetic theory and thus actually don't know anything about HAARP besides what you get from ATS and other less than credible places. To restate, it has a max output power of 3.6MW (million Watts) and it operates at both 3 and 10MHz (million hertz).

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Edited March 15, 2011 by badeskov

[Little Fish]

This is just plain out wrong. You can only get out what you send in, thus the maximum you can get out of the HAARP antenna array is 3.6MW, and it will be even less than that due to loss factors in the system. Gain is not some "magical" entity that boost your output power of an antenna. For antennas gain in a given direction simply refers to much much energy is sent out in a given direction compared to what would be sent out by an ideal omnidirectional antenna with the same input power.

"The facility officially began full operations in its final 3.6 MW transmitter power completed status in the summer of 2007, yielding an effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 Gigawatts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

[Little Fish]

Resonance sounds intriguing, however, the problem is depositing the energy in the ELF radio waves at the right spot. Even assuming that HAARP had the ability focus energy in a given spot it would not be absorbed at said spot. The issue with ELF (and also the reason it is used to contact submerged subs) is that due to the very low frequency it can penetrate very deep. It can do that because at the low frequency only a very small fraction gets absorbed as it travels through water/rock. So you can't create a "hot spot" using ELF radio waves.

why would you need to create a "hotspot"? a light wind can take down a suspension bridge, not because the wind creates a "hot spot", but because it's frequency matches the natural frequency of the bridge. resonance is a capacitor in a system, it accumulates energy in the system with each wave. does an opera singer need to direct her voice and focus a "hot spot" on a glass to shatter it? a child can effortlessly move a heavy adult high on a swing by applying pressure at the right moment by timing his push to the frequency of the swinging adult.

[Obviousman]

You didn't read enough:

In radio telecommunications, effective radiated power or equivalent radiated power (ERP) is a standardized theoretical measurement of radio frequency (RF) energy[1] [2] using the SI unit watts, and is determined by subtracting system losses and adding system gains. ERP takes into consideration transmitter power output (TPO), transmission line attenuation (electrical resistance and RF radiation), RF connector insertion losses, and antenna directivity, but not height above average terrain (HAAT). ERP is typically applied to antenna systems.

For a simplified example, if an antenna system has 9 dB gain and 6 dB loss, its ERP is 3 dB over (equal to double) the TPO. The use of circular polarization, or otherwise splitting between horizontal and vertical linear polarization, causes a "loss" of 3dB, cutting the reported ERP in half. If full-wavelength spacing is used between antenna elements in an array, the ERP is increased multiplicatively with the number of elements. For half-wave-spaced elements (used to limit RF radiation hazard beneath the radio tower), only half of the elements count. Null fill also detracts from the ERP by increasing the power in the nulls that form between side lobes. Stations with beam tilt often have two ERPs listed: one at the angle of tilt (the main lobe), and another in the standard horizontal plane. When only one ERP is listed, this is usually referring to the power in the main lobe.

.

.

.

For example, an FM radio station which advertises that it has 100,000 watts of power actually has 100,000 watts ERP, and probably not an actual 100,000-watt transmitter. The TPO of such a station typically may be 10,000 to 20,000 watts, with a gain factor of 5 to 10 (5× to 10×, or 7 to 10dB). In most antenna designs, gain is realized primarily by concentrating power toward the horizontal plane and suppressing it at upward and downward angles, through the use of phased arrays of antenna elements. The distribution of power versus elevation angle is known as the vertical pattern. When an antenna is also directional horizontally, gain and ERP will vary with azimuth (compass direction). Rather than the average, it is the maximum ERP in any direction that is usually quoted as a station's power. This is particularly applicable to the huge ERPs reported for shortwave broadcasting stations, which use very narrow beam widths to get their signals across continents and oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_radiated_power

Now, what did Badeskov say?

For antennas gain in a given direction simply refers to much much energy is sent out in a given direction compared to what would be sent out by an ideal omnidirectional antenna with the same input power.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Obviousman

[Little Fish]

I haven't seen so much obfuscatory sophistry since...well, your previous post.

[Obviousman]

Yeah, well, facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

[Little Fish]

Yeah, well, facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

do you disagree with post #28?

is post 28 "plain out wrong"?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=202081&st=15&p=3819385entry3819385

or are you just pretending or being misled that I said something that I didn't say.

[Czero 101]

I haven't seen so much obfuscatory sophistry since...well, your previous post.

Interesting... using sophism to accuse someone of sophistry...

Cz

[badeskov]

"The facility officially began full operations in its final 3.6 MW transmitter power completed status in the summer of 2007, yielding an effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 Gigawatts"

http://en.wikipedia....esearch_Program

How about reading the official HAARP technical details page?

There is one transmitter cabinet (see Transmitter Information) dedicated to each antenna mast. The complete IRI consists of 180 antenna masts and 180 transmitter cabinets. Each transmitter cabinet contains two identical transmitters, each of which is capable of producing a maximum output power of 10 kW. Thus, the maximum power that can be delivered to any of the array elements (or masts) in the array is 20 kW.

180 x 20kW = 3,600kW or 3.6MW. As Obviousman correctly stated, ERP is a theoretical measure and no matter how much you wish for it, you can't get more energy out than you put into your system. And in contrary to amplifier systems where gain is active, in antenna systems gain is passive and simply gives a number for how well you can focus (transmitter) or collect (reciever) RF energy. Please read more here on antenna gain and what it really means.

Gain is a parameter which measures the degree of directivity of the antenna's radiation pattern. An antenna with a low gain emits radiation with about the same power in all directions, whereas a high-gain antenna will preferentially radiate in particular directions. Specifically, the antenna gain, directive gain, or power gain of an antenna is defined as the ratio of the intensity (power per unit surface) radiated by the antenna in the direction of its maximum output, at an arbitrary distance, divided by the intensity radiated at the same distance by a hypothetical isotropic antenna.

The gain of an antenna is a passive phenomenon - power is not added by the antenna, but simply redistributed to provide more radiated power in a certain direction than would be transmitted by an isotropic antenna. An antenna designer must take into account the application for the antenna when determining the gain. High-gain antennas have the advantage of longer range and better signal quality, but must be aimed carefully in a particular direction. Low-gain antennas have shorter range, but the orientation of the antenna is relatively inconsequential. For example, a dish antenna on a spacecraft is a high-gain device that must be pointed at the planet to be effective, whereas a typical Wi-Fi antenna in a laptop computer is low-gain, and as long as the base station is within range, the antenna can be in any orientation in space. It makes sense to improve horizontal range at the expense of reception above or below the antenna. Thus most antennas labelled "omnidirectional" really have some gain.^[4]

In practice, the half-wave dipole is taken as a reference instead of the isotropic radiator. The gain is then given in dBd (decibels over dipole):

NOTE: 0 dBd = 2.15 dBi. It is vital in expressing gain values that the reference point be included. Failure to do so can lead to confusion and error.

An ideal omnidirectional (isotropic) antenna will emit the same amount of energy in all directions and typically, for practical purposes, a half wave dipole antenna is used as a standard. An antenna with gain just radiates most of it's energy in a specific direction and not all over the place. HAARP can deliver 3.6MW, no more. It is really that simple.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[badeskov]

do you disagree with post #28?

is post 28 "plain out wrong"?

http://www.unexplain...5

or are you just pretending or being misled that I said something that I didn't say.

I will let Obviousman post his own answer, but I will allow myself to chip in as well. Yes, the second half of post #28 is simply "plain out wrong". I suggest you actually read up a bit on electromagnetics and antenna theory.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Little Fish]

the second half of post #28 is simply "plain out wrong". I suggest you actually read up a bit on electromagnetics and antenna theory.

what is the effective radiated power of the HAARP system?

please refer back to post 28 to see what I said. do you see anywhere where I used the word "effective", anywhere at all?

this is the most elaborate strawman argument since...well, you know the rest.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Little Fish

[Obviousman]

Really? What is the natural frequency of "the planet"? Reference for your answer, if possible, please.

Still waiting for an answer for this, Little Fish.

[Space Commander Travis]

This, I think, is proof of what does seem to be the principle (which I have actually tried to argue against in the past) that if someone is generally temperamentally inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, then they have to believe in every single one there is going, no matter how preposterous, and no matter what it is, since, if the US Government is behind it, then it must be true. And every single time anything happens anywhere in the world, whether it's earthquakes or power stations blowing up or a revolution somewhere, then you can bet your last 20p that the same people will pop up with a ready-made theory that They (the US Government and/or the NWO) were behind it.

But one thing which never really seems to be explained to any satisfactory extent, is why, exactly? The only answer ever seems to be that They're capable of anything because They're evil enough, but, regarding this particular case, what exactly is HAARP designed for in the first place, if it was designed for evil purposes, and ( b ) why, when they put it to use, do they do it in such a random way?

[Space Commander Travis]

It's in the hands of a country who's killing civilians in Pakistan with robotic drones. In the hands of the people aiding the war in Afghanistan. A nation who's aiding a country commiting a genocide in Palestine, yet criticizes "murderous" dictators that they themselves put in power.

Maybe it was a horrible analogy, but I meant that it's in our best interest to question all possibilities. We live in outrageous times.

See, exactly what I mean. The "They're evil enough to do anything" argument in a nutshell. So why would the US Govt. wish to trigger an earthquake (a weapon that one could hardly aim with any accuracy, I wouldn't have thought?) in or off Japan? Does the US wish to take over and occupy Japan once again? Take over its industry?

People seem to start off with the crime, then decide on the usual suspect, and not really bother with worrying about any kind of motive or how they might have done it. Why not just save an awful lot of time by announcing that, whatever might ever happen anywhere in the world, it's the US Govt. that's responsible for it?

[S I N]

It wasn't haarp ! ! It was those crazy people at CERN ! It was a micro black hole!

JUST KIDDING

Edited March 15, 2011 by S I N

[robinzhood311]

First, HAARP, or the original technology upon which HAARP was built was intended to be used toward the concept of free energy for all. You know, as opposed to our current financial system where all the little people pay all of the big corporations to provide us with what we need to survive; heat, energy etc.

Second, I am one of those who believes in many of the conspiracies that have surfaced since (and including) the death of JFK. But I don't just stumble onto these things and then adopt them as my own. This is one of my favorite quotes; "Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance." Having said that, I delve deeply into a given subject and try to find irrefutable proof before I claim that "conspiracy" as my own, or at least one that I believe in.

Moving on to the question of 'why?'. This goes further back than most people are willing to go, but here it is. Before Columbus landed in America, the natives of the land kept records on metalic plates. To cut to the chase, one of these records contains stories of a group of bandits called the Gadianton robbers after their 'founder' Gadianton. Their hearts were set on riches and wealth and they did not care who was hurt so long as they had their gold and silver and their leisurely lifestyle. The story goes that the group made a pact with Satan and for the murders that they committed, Satan taught them ancient & secret combinations to overcome and fool or trick the people of their time. These robbers were not content to be in the midst of their society, they wanted to be above their fellows, and to rule over them. Similar to what you've heard of today's secret societies, they have signs or handshakes or gestures to differentiate themselves from the rest of society. The secret combinations and codes and tactics have been handed down generation to generation and their society has prevailed.

Their desire is to rule over all of us who are not a part of their organization, and to draw all of the wealth to themselves in order to further control us. Since their numbers are so much fewer than the average man, part of their agenda is to kill off 80-90% of the worlds population in order that they can control the remainder.

If you think it is all too far fetched, do some research. I have spent years on the subject and I am just giving a brief overview. Many of the early presidents of the US also warned that this group of men would pursue power through control of the central banking system. Btw, did you know that the federal reserve is a privately owned organization? It is NOT owned by the US government. I guess at this point, it would not matter if it were.

[robinzhood311]

They are not Americans. They have infiltrated the highest offices of power, from one end to the other, but they are not Americans.

Futhermore, I think that those of us who are capable of critical thought can differentiate between group think, following the crowd, and determining the underlying cause of a given issue. Studying history and using deductive reasoning to assertain how realistic a given issue may be is really not that difficult.

[Little Fish]

"Another approach pursued by Tesla was to transmit extra-low-frequency signals through the space between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere. Tesla calculated that the resonant frequency of this area was approximately 8-hertz. It was not until the 1950s that this idea was taken seriously and researchers were surprised to discover that the resonant frequency of this space was indeed in the range of 8-hertz."

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_colspr.html

[badeskov]

what is the effective radiated power of the HAARP system?

That depends on how you lok at it. But essentially the effective radiated power is 3.6MW. That is all they can put out. Period!

please refer back to post 28 to see what I said. do you see anywhere where I used the word "effective", anywhere at all?

Nope, and that is the problem. In science semantics is rather important. HAARP is not emitting 5.1GW of power, it is emitting 3.6MW.

this is the most elaborate strawman argument since...well, you know the rest.

Nope. It is not a strawman, but simple facts. But if you feel it is a strawman feel free to report me. But it is a simple fact, like it or not.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Space Commander Travis]

Moving on to the question of 'why?'. This goes further back than most people are willing to go, but here it is. Before Columbus landed in America, the natives of the land kept records on metalic plates. To cut to the chase, one of these records contains stories of a group of bandits called the Gadianton robbers after their 'founder' Gadianton. Their hearts were set on riches and wealth and they did not care who was hurt so long as they had their gold and silver and their leisurely lifestyle. The story goes that the group made a pact with Satan and for the murders that they committed, Satan taught them ancient & secret combinations to overcome and fool or trick the people of their time. These robbers were not content to be in the midst of their society, they wanted to be above their fellows, and to rule over them. Similar to what you've heard of today's secret societies, they have signs or handshakes or gestures to differentiate themselves from the rest of society. The secret combinations and codes and tactics have been handed down generation to generation and their society has prevailed.

Their desire is to rule over all of us who are not a part of their organization, and to draw all of the wealth to themselves in order to further control us. Since their numbers are so much fewer than the average man, part of their agenda is to kill off 80-90% of the worlds population in order that they can control the remainder.

If you think it is all too far fetched, do some research. I have spent years on the subject and I am just giving a brief overview. Many of the early presidents of the US also warned that this group of men would pursue power through control of the central banking system. Btw, did you know that the federal reserve is a privately owned organization? It is NOT owned by the US government. I guess at this point, it would not matter if it were.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this hypothesis. The question, though, is why? What do they want out of it? Just power for the sake of it? If they want power, where's the satisfaction in having power over just a tiny fraction of the people? And why have they waited centuries to do this, is it because they've been waiting for the technology to make it possible to rule over everything? How much wealth do they need if they're going to eradicate 90% of the people? Is it just wealth for the sake of it, like power for the sake of it?